Noah's Ark Found?

I just read an article that was an update from a week or so ago about a guy named Bob Cornuke who is basically a self-proclaimed "Christian explorer". I had read some negative things about this guy and I know there are a few others out there who also seek to find elusive artifacts - religious in their nature.

At my last read, it was said that Cornuke was leading an expedition in northern Iran to what he says is the actual mountains of Ararat. He claims the range in Turkey is not the ones depicted in the bible and was called Ararat later by Marco Polo.

Since this time, I noticed they had updated this guys progress that they say they did indeed find the ark and they have a link with photos of the petrified wood remains of the timbers on an elevation of about 13000 ft.

Check it out and tell us what you think of the validity of this. Could this be real in light that some say that Cornuke is a scam artist?

Article:
Koenig's International News

Article with photos of the ark:
Christian Worldview Network

The closeups of the "beam" sections look quite a bit like petrified planks. The distant shots of the whole formation, not so much.

This shot shows it best :


The rock is all one type and color. It's stratified like "beams" to the upper right. But look in the lower left corner. It looks like solid smooth rock. Since it's all one formation, it has to be the same rock.

I would agree with the geologist and go with basalt dike.

Originally posted by eaglewingz
I would agree with the geologist and go with basalt dike.

One of the articles (forget which of the two pages), says a sample was tested and indeed it was petrified. Maybe some of the rocks are natural, but at least some is ancient wood. Under the right conditions, how long would it take to petrify wood?

At any rate, some of it was wood and to find it at that elevation in the sizes discovered means that someone brought it there at the very least. The pottery found in the area reveals that people were there as well. Hopefully they will find more and more conclusive evidence as time goes on.

Yeah, I read about the tests showing it was wood. But, being the skeptic at heart that I am , I wish they had dropped some details. Lab where the tests were performed, tests that were conducted, the actual scientific results of those tests, things of that nature.

It's the same with

"Some of America’s leading businessmen, an attorney who has argued several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and two leading apologists.."

Could we have some names please? Or at least a slightly more informative description of the team? The two put together are just as useless as a tabloid saying, "Prominent experts say..."

I'm going to keep an eye on this interesting story, but I'm not going to hold my breath until more details are forthcoming.

Originally posted by eaglewingz
I'm going to keep an eye on this interesting story, but I'm not going to hold my breath until more details are forthcoming.

The same here. I think if this is really the ark, it won't be long until it hits mainstream media, otherwise it is just good entertainment.

I'm wondering if they found any other evidence that would suggest what it is? Just because they found some petrified wood on a mountain does not mean it is "the Ark". I mean, logically speaking, it could have been from anything. I'm not an expert, but this seems to be stretching it for me. You know how when they dig up a site of great importance, there are other artifacts that can be shown to proove what the theory of its origin is. All I see (untrianed eye, I know) is a bunch of slabs of rocks.

It's kinda like when you are looking for a sign from God and you have a really tripping dream, it HAS to be from him! Right?

So, maybe it's a case of wanting something so bad that it manifests itself right in front of you, at least you think it does.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I think it would outstanding if they proove it to be true, my God, the implications are immense!

Originally posted by uplander
I'm wondering if they found any other evidence that would suggest what it is? Just because they found some petrified wood on a mountain does not mean it is "the Ark". I mean, logically speaking, it could have been from anything.

True, it could be from anything. If you look at some of the photos, they are definitely wood. Some of the rocks, frankly; look like rocks. Some do look like hewn beams!

Not to my knowledge have they said anything about what they could be, but there is two things going for this story:

1) Wood this size does not appear at the altitude of 13k ft. unless it was brought there by some means.
2) It was brought there long enough ago that it became petrified.

Remember, this peak was revealed because of an ice melt-off. Supposedly, the locals new about the site through word-of-mouth stories, so at least a time or two, people had witnessed these artifacts before (sorry dont have a link to this info).

Yes, it would be profound if they could tell what exactly what this was. I think if there was a way to use ground penetrating radar to verify the layout of these planks then it would suggest more about what these beams were supposed to be. I think the size of the ark would make it quite a bit more believeable if they could show the size and scope of the area these petrified structures lay.

Reg Lyle, oil and gas geologist said “the object appears to be a basalt dike, however, it is absolutely uncanny that the object looks like hand hewn timbers, even the grain and color look just like petrified wood….I really need to keep an open-mind about this.”

I agree. It looks exactly like a basalt dyke. Hmmm, you don't suppose it could be a basalt dyke do you?

ok admitidly it looks like a boat shape, i googled it to see what other pictures i could find and came up withy this site is this the same one www.biblediscoveries.com...

intresting stuff there about the anchor stones,

so basically my point is if it is a boat fair enough but who's to say this is the actual ark. but then again it could just be a freaky rock formation

Thats as much Noahs Ark as my car.

What on earth convinced them to publish that? Are they liars or utterly deluded?

Unfortunately, the authors of the article won't let anyone directly quote the article, or 'duplicate' any images, which I take to mean you can't present the image here.

Of the images:
Thats not petrified wood, thats just rock.

None of those images appear to be petrified wood, they all look just like regular old rock.

They say that they tested the rock in this article
www.worldviewweekend.com...

and that it was petrified wood and had marine fissile material


Notice that they don't bother to note where it was tested, how it was tested, what the results of the test actually demonstrated, etc.

I am not sure what they mean by 'marine fissile'. It could be a rock that is fissile, or they could've meant to write 'marin fossil'. If there are marin fossils in the sample, its not petrified wood.

Originally posted by ben91069
Under the right conditions, how long would it take to petrify wood?

The thing is, the conditions to petrify wood are that its buried and its structure is replaced by minerals (permineralization). So where is the sediment that it was buried in? And how did it get buried if it was on a mountain-top?

The pottery found in the area reveals that people were there as well.

That doesn't in itself mean anything, wrt it being noah's ark. And, agian, notice, they don't explain what it looked like, or show any photos of the pottery, nor even try to class it within any known pottery types.

I think most telling is that, for some inane reason, they cite a wife of a former astronaut as saying that it could be the ark.

Who the hell cares what she thinks? Rather, they cite her to lend some sort of 'authority' to the finding, to associate it with the presitge of the astronauts.

Authority, not evidence.

It was brought there long enough ago that it became petrified.

Here's the thing, wood doesn't turn into rock merely because its old. It has to be buried in sediment, and that sediment has to infiltrate the structure of the rock and replace it with minerals.

I think that any expedition that "finds" a petrified ark is completely wrong. Of course, its POSSIBLE that the arks was magically buried while on top of a mountain, became petrified, then magically the sediment disappeared, sure. i mean, the story already accepts that a magical flood covered the whole planet, so why not?

ronishia
this site is this the same one www.biblediscoveries.com...

Thats a different site.

Uncle Joe
Are they liars or utterly deluded?

I'll go with the former.

Y'know, it's wierd.
There are flood/ark stories in many, many different cultures all over the world.
The one that comes to mind is the story within the story of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
It is the story of Utanapishtim was was told by gods to build an ark to survive the upcoming flood.
There is a Norse flood story.
There are several South Pacific Island stories about world wide floods.
There are about a dozen South American stories about massive floods.
And also stories from China, Tibet, India and dozens from Africa.
Most (if not all of them) predate the Noah story (which I'm pretty sure is an adaptation of one of these other stories and edited to fit the criteria of the bible).

So basically what I'm saying is...
is that stuff up on the mountain could be anything.
Jeepers, I didn't mean to be so long winded

Originally posted by wu kung
Y'know, it's wierd.
There are flood/ark stories in many, many different cultures all over the world.
The one that comes to mind is the story within the story of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
It is the story of Utanapishtim was was told by gods to build an ark to survive the upcoming flood.

If you read it (and the other version of the flood myth, in the story of Atrahasis) you'll find that what is described is a very strong wind, dark skies, and a storm surge.

Sort of like what hit New Orleans last September .....

you realy think the ark still exists,

after 2000+ years

evan if the was wood found in the right place looking vaguely similar the chances are impossible,

people have used wood for ever,its not it get over it

That's assuming that the ark ever actually existed in the first place.
Well, in that capacity anyway.


I will take two of every candy bar when the rains come.
And two of every soda (in case I get thirsty)




and some popcorn

ben,

Here's my two cents:

The probability that there even was an Ark is an astronomical negative number. Remember :
1. it would have to have been built with stone tools in an area with sparse tree cover.
2. it would not have been able to support its own weight out of water.
3. there is not enough identified water in our Solar System to provide the rain necessary, let alone in our atmosphere. Of course the committee who copied the story from the Gilgamesh Saga would not have consider the scientific details necessary to support the fantasy.
4. yet another baseless claim by some true-believer is hardly credible.
5. The likelihood of an actual Ark is exactly the same as that of the burning bush, Moses and the 40,000, virgin birth, resurrection; the actual existence of WMD in Iraq, the likelihood that the Bush Administration is not criminally negligent; the list of fantastic claims goes on and on.

I will admit that an Italian fisherman caught the “big fish” that swallowed Jonah just last week but when he was asked if it could be photographed for posterity he explained that, sadly his policy of “catch and release” obviated any such evidence. Too bad.

From Genesis 7:11 : ...all the fountains of the deep were broken up...

So the water came not just from the atmosphere, but inside the earth as well.

Off-Topic (sorry)

You are the King of the Bashers!! I thought Bashing was a stretch in a thread about modern-day law enforcement - you managed to get in a shot in one about Bible history!

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by ben91069
Under the right conditions, how long would it take to petrify wood?

The thing is, the conditions to petrify wood are that its buried and its structure is replaced by minerals (permineralization). So where is the sediment that it was buried in? And how did it get buried if it was on a mountain-top?

I can see how wood from a possible ark could become petrified by sediment given the whole flood story. Imagine, if you will, the ark coming to rest as the waters recede just as a grounded ship would. Mind you no one knows the veracity of this story and no one can predict if there was enough sediment to do the job, but a vessel this size would surely sink under load into the soil, once the water went away, so at least some of the wood could be buried and then petrified.

I remember in the mid 70's, "Naoh's Ark Found" ............... yet, 30 years later, there is still no such thing, outside of myth.

NN

I don't suspect they had a geologist with them.

Looks to me like a simple tilted outcropping of shale. Here is an image of what shale can look like:



Oh, brother... :shk:

Q. What does shale look like?

A. Shale looks like flat rock that splits into thinner and thinner sheets. As important as what it looks like, is to understand what shale is composed of. Shale is a sedimentary rock that may have a variety of colors, but because of its composition typically has partings that are parallel to the bedding of the layers of rock above and below it. The partings are a property called fissility, that is shale is fissile. This property is due to the minerals that compose the rock.

Shale is initially deposited as clay, from either fresh or salt water. Clay consists of very small mineral grains that are platelike in shape or form, in other words, they are generally flat and thin, kind of like a dinner plate or sheet of paper. When they are first deposited, they lay at all angles from horizontal to vertical (standing on edge). Then as more sediment is deposited on top of the clay layer or bed, the water between the clay particles begins to be squeezed out and the clay minerals begin to all lay flat or horizontal. As this happens over a period of time, the resulting rock - shale - develops the property of fissility.

Fissile rocks can be split or weather into flat pieces, kind of sheetlike in form. Shale rarely contains any carbonate minerals, like calcite or dolomite, so it will not fizz if you put a drop of vinegar or weak hydrochloric acid on it. Shale may be black, gray, red, green, or brownish, depending on how much pyrite, iron oxide, or carbonaceous (organic) material was deposited with it or formed after it was deposited. A shale having a red color is evidence that the clay underwent some oxygen-rich process, like weathering, before it was consolidated into a rock. So a sample of shale may exhibit one or more colors, however, it is commonly black or gray, it splits into sheets (is fissile), is usually soft enough to scratch with your fingernail, but sometimes it takes a nail if the rock has really gotten hard, and is very fine-grained. You may see a few sparkly grains of mica on the broad flat surface of a sample, but mica is really not too common. When you see shale on an outcrop that has been weathered, you may see a lot of platy pieces of rock below the outcrop.

Now go back and look at the source pictures....



[edit on 24-6-2006 by loam]